Published Friday, June 5, 1998, in the San Jose Mercury News
JOHN JORDAN
Prop. 226 defeat is impressive, but leadership
must change with the times
Labor should heed lessons of victory
BY JOHN JORDAN
LABOR won an important victory Tuesday when it
decisively defeated Proposition 226, the so-called
Paycheck Protection Act. Unions and their allies beat
back a cynical and well-coordinated attempt to deny
them a strong voice in the political process. Labor did
what it had to do, combining an aggressive and
well-funded television ad campaign with an
unprecedented effort to engage and mobilize
members.
But in politics, victory can be almost as dangerous as
defeat. In the midst of the well-deserved excitement,
hard questions and sober analysis can get shoved to
the back burner. The following are some lessons labor
should consider as it moves toward November:
The best defense is a good offense. Labor's enemies
have long understood this maxim. In a sense, even in
defeat they enjoyed victory, as Proposition 226
drained energy and resources -- some $20 million --
that unions could have thrown into a proactive
campaign. Putting a proposition on the ballot costs
about $200,000. Defeating one costs almost 10 times
as much. Labor should put at least one forward-looking
proposition on the state ballot during every election
cycle.
Labor is and will remain a primarily political power.
The ``No on 226'' effort was one of many union political
victories of recent years. An increased minimum wage,
the Family and Medical Leave Act and ``living wage''
laws in Oakland and other cities are just some of
labor's positive political wins.
At the same time, labor continues to lose power at the
bargaining table. Its strikes and other efforts have
been largely defensive acts to merely maintain the
status quo. Even the successful strike waged against
United Parcel Service by the Teamsters Union was
largely defensive. And the Teamsters have yet to
translate it into other bargaining or membership
recruitment wins.
Nowhere is labor's failure to successfully operate
outside the political arena more obvious than in the
AFL-CIO's high-profile and expensive efforts to recruit
new members. Many Bay Area residents are familiar
with the United Farm Workers' campaign to organize
strawberry workers in Watsonville. After two years and
millions of AFL-CIO dollars, the UFW has about 50 new
members to show for its efforts. The AFL-CIO has had
more success elsewhere, recruiting about 3,000 new
construction workers in Las Vegas. But the heart sinks
when one is reminded that the U.S. economy adds
about 250,000 new jobs a month. Even in the midst of
a boom, unions' share of the workforce continues its
inexorable decline.
Ironically, many of the AFL-CIO's membership
recruiters disparage electoral politics, convinced it's a
waste of time. But the results speak for themselves.
Tens of millions of workers saw real and immediate
benefits when, under intense union pressure, Congress
raised the minimum wage. Contrast that with labor's
membership recruitment program. Unions win only
half the organizing campaigns they run. And only half
those victories result in signed collective bargaining
agreements.
In business terms, labor gets its highest return on
investment in the political arena. I predict that within a
decade, the AFL-CIO and its member unions will
re-orient themselves almost completely toward
electoral politics, concentrating on mobilizing the
members they have rather than spending millions to
add a few thousand new ones.
Members make the difference. During the decade I
worked for unions in Washington, D.C., I heard one
thing over and over again: ``What labor needs is new
leadership.'' This was and is undoubtedly true. Unions
are still dominated by men whose understanding of the
workplace and the larger society was forged in the
1950s. I know from firsthand experience that few of
these ``leaders'' has the slightest idea about how to
send an e-mail, let alone how cutting-edge companies
like those in Silicon Valley manage their operations and
employees. An injection of genuinely new blood is long
overdue.
But leaders are nothing without followers. Union
members followed union officials when they got out
from behind their desks and communicated directly
with members. I think even some officials were
surprised at how energetic and effective members
treated intelligently and respectfully can be.
This shouldn't blind union officials to how much further
they have to go to truly reconnect with members. It
was ironic to hear union representatives speak out
against Proposition 226 by saying it was redundant,
that it would ``simply protect a right union members
already have.'' Union officials implied that members'
right to withhold dues money that goes to politics --
Beck rights -- came about as a result of internal union
processes. It didn't, and union officials know it. The
U.S. Supreme Court imposed this right on unions. To
this day, most union officials disparage this right and
those who exercise it. It is important to publicly
acknowledge that just about every advance in union
democracy -- from Beck to direct elections at the
Teamsters, Laborers and other unions -- is the result
of federal intervention in internal union affairs. It is
labor's rigid governing style that gives its opponents
openings to tie up unions with things like Proposition
226. If unions really are democratic, let them prove it.
Let them adopt long overdue reforms before the
government or their enemies force them to.
Labor should be proud of what it accomplished on
Tuesday. I say to my union friends: By all means,
celebrate your victory. But please use this win as a
chance to learn the lessons that will let you spend $20
million moving the ball forward, instead of just keeping
it at your own 20-yard line.
John Jordan is a labor consultant and public relations
executive from Campbell. He can be contacted at
[EMAIL PROTECTED] .
==================================
Published Thursday, June 4, 1998, in the San Jose Mercury News
PROPOSITION 226
BY HALLYE JORDAN AND JIM PUZZANGHERA
Mercury News Staff Writers
SACRAMENTO -- On the door of the California
Teachers Association building, handmade signs thank
voters for the come-from-behind defeat of Proposition
226 on Tuesday.
But the CTA, which poured $3.7 million into the
campaign to trounce the once-popular union-dues
proposition, should also thank Gov. Pete Wilson. The
outgoing Republican governor's tireless campaign on
behalf of the nationally watched measure probably
contributed to its downfall -- and may have slowed
momentum for similar measures pending in at least 26
other states.
``There is no doubt Pete Wilson's high profile as
chairman of the 226 committee was like waving a red
flag in front of a bull,'' said Dick Rosengarten, publisher
of the California Political Week, a non-partisan political
newsletter. ``Who cares about (226 financial backers )
J. Patrick Rooney and Grover Norquist? Everyone
knows who Gov. Pete Wilson is, and that's all that it
takes.''
The vote may have more impact nationally than in
California.
On Capitol Hill on Wednesday, lawmakers were gauging
the effects the California ballot battle would have on a
similar union dues provision that's been proposed as
part of the federal campaign finance reform. Bills
specifically addressing the issue have been defeated in
the Senate and the House. But Senate Majority Leader
Trent Lott and House Speaker Newt Gingrich -- both
Republicans -- are strong supporters of the issue.
Rep. Asa Hutchinson, R-Ark., the sponsor of a
campaign reform bill being pushed by congressional
freshmen, predicted Wednesday that the defeat of
Proposition 226 will doom efforts to add a similar
provision to their bill.
The proposition received national attention, and
financial backing, from conservative groups that are
pushing similar measures in other states and in
Congress in an attempt to curb labor's political clout.
Norquist, the Washington, D.C., lobbyist who pumped
$441,000 into the California initiative, said Tuesday's
election results will not slow his conservative
Americans for Tax Reform group from pushing for
similar laws across the country. Norquist said that
although it was defeated, putting Proposition 226 on
the ballot in bellwether California served a bigger
purpose. It sparked a national debate on whether
unions should receive permission from their members
before funneling a portion of their dues to political
causes and candidates.
Backer says issue moves forward
``People in California were getting these phone calls
from people saying (if Proposition 226 passes), police
are going to get killed, it's going to hurt the United
Way. That kind of distraction was basically dishonest
political rhetoric,'' Norquist said. ``But the rest of the
nation had an honest discussion. So, win, lose or draw
in California, the issue has moved forward rather well
nationally.''
Proposition 226 would have cut labor's considerable
political clout by requiring union leaders to obtain
permission from members before putting their union
dues into political campaigns.
The measure had one of the highest approval ratings
when first introduced, but its popularity plummeted in
the wake of at least $20 million that national and state
labor unions poured into TV ads and political mailers.
A Field Poll in November showed 72 percent of voters
supported it and 22 percent opposed it; by last week,
45 percent were in support and 47 percent opposed.
``The irony here is that that the poultry worker in
South Carolina and the millworker in Maine and the
teacher in Wisconsin all had money taken from their
paycheck and spent on a campaign in California that
they knew nothing about,'' said Sean Walsh, Wilson's
press secretary.
Labor leaders said Wednesday the stunning victory has
unified labor unions across the nation and will motivate
workers to keep using the political voice they
protected by turning out en masse in November and
future elections -- especially when labor rights are
attacked.
``We emerge from this campaign stronger than ever,''
said Art Pulaski, executive secretary-treasurer of the
California Labor Federation, AFL-CIO. ``Starting today,
California unions can turn our attention back to the
real work of the labor movement: decent wages and
daily overtime, better health care and secure pensions,
better education for all our kids.''
One business leader who asked not to be named,
however, said he doubts the reinvigorated labor
movement will last long.
``I do think people turned out to vote against 226, and
I don't know anybody who turned out to vote just for
226,'' the business representative said. ``But I don't
think that necessarily translates to bigger voting in
November or any other election.''
Another try promised
Mark Bucher, one of three conservative Orange County
businessmen who wrote the initiative after tussling with
the California Teachers Association over school
vouchers, said he will try to requalify the initiative.
``I think this is a victory, even in defeat, because
(opponents) threw everything they had at us and we
only lost by a couple of points,'' Bucher said.
But Judith Barish, spokeswoman for the California
Labor Federation, AFL-CIO, said any future
propositions will be even easier to defeat the second
time around.
Did the defeat of Proposition 226 hurt the presidential
chances of Wilson, who has clashed with labor over
everything from salary increases and minimum-wage
increases to the eight-hour workday?
``You better believe it,'' Rosengarten said. ``He was
counting on this to really help give him a boost.''
But Walsh, Wilson's press secretary, said the defeat
won't hurt Wilson politically.
``Here is a man that stood against the odds, against a
$30 million onslaught with very little outside political
support, and, quite frankly, we ran a campaign that
came up a few points short,'' Walsh said. ``That's fairly
remarkable for the massive amount of money that was
spent against it.''
